veppandi guhan
Iron
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2024
- Posts
- 188
- Reputation
- 279
While there can be significant value in nature reserves and being able to see amazing animals in the wild we do not need to conserve every single animal, especially not animals who are clearly harmful to humans.
Nature is there for humans, not the other way around.
Humanity triumph after billions of years of evolution and we have every right to shape the planet to our liking.
About 'invasive' species
Why shouldn't we simply let the more competitive species win?
The Dingo dog entered Australia just 3000 years ago and they are already an important part of their ecosystem.
With most/all invasive species it will be the same, at first they are destructive but over time other animals will adapt and evolve to deal with the new competitor while other's die out, evolution continue forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...onservation-inheritors-of-the-earth-interview
In australia we are seeing feral cats evolving quickly to become bigger, isn't that something to be excited about?
About so called "genetic pollution"
You would be viewed as a nazi if you used the same reasoning with regard to humans but people do use it with regard to wild animals claiming that them mixing with other races/subspecies would be bad.
In reality adding more genetic diversity to a wild population can actually help it to persist, expanding the gene-pool of the population will allow evolution to make the population more fit by selecting for the genes that are beneficial for survival and reproduction. Sure it's not conservation in the strictest sense but evolution itself is not about conserving species in their current form, change is natural and generally good for the environment.
Extreme conservationism put humans as a "least concern" at best
If you visit the wikipedia article about a specie you will see "conservation status" mentioned there
simple.m.wikipedia.org
But if you are going to apply the same standard on humans as we do on other species humans would actually be an invasive species, we do indeed cause a lot of environmental destruction which is an unavoidable consequence of being much more successful than other species. We are simply superior and as a result inferior species are now going extinct as evolution continues.
And we do in fact see environmentalists pushing humans to have fewer children similar to how the reproduction of other successful species are artificially restricted by environmentalists (such as castrating feral cats allowing rats to take over).
I have seen some people (often racists) promote conservationism with regard to human 'races' (or whatever) but that's not really something we do with wild animals, we do let wild animals mix with each other.
Of course humans getting conservation status "least concern" does not mean that humans itself should be that but then we have to value other things than merely conserving species for the sake of conserving species. What we should focus on is what is best for humanity, humans should be the first concern, not the last concern.
How environmentalists are making the rat problem worse in cities
For thousands of years humans have collaborated with cats letting them hunt rodents for food/sports.
But increasingly environmentalists have started complaining about cats killing useless birds and endangered species we never needed in the first place and because of that the feral cat population has been kept artificially down via mass-castration. As a result there are a lot more disease carrying rats instead of cute cats.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2018.00146/full
In order for cats to be effective against rats you need to have a lot of them so they are pushed to actually hunt for rats rather than easier prey or free food from humans. That is achieved naturally by simply letting the cat population grow to the natural equilibrium.
Some species are downright harmful towards humans
We should 100% exterminate mosquitos given the opportunity. Same with other nasty parasites like ticks, we simply don't need them anywhere.
The environment exist to serve humanity, not the other way around.
Nature is there for humans, not the other way around.
Humanity triumph after billions of years of evolution and we have every right to shape the planet to our liking.
About 'invasive' species
Why shouldn't we simply let the more competitive species win?
The Dingo dog entered Australia just 3000 years ago and they are already an important part of their ecosystem.
With most/all invasive species it will be the same, at first they are destructive but over time other animals will adapt and evolve to deal with the new competitor while other's die out, evolution continue forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...onservation-inheritors-of-the-earth-interview
In australia we are seeing feral cats evolving quickly to become bigger, isn't that something to be excited about?
About so called "genetic pollution"
You would be viewed as a nazi if you used the same reasoning with regard to humans but people do use it with regard to wild animals claiming that them mixing with other races/subspecies would be bad.
In reality adding more genetic diversity to a wild population can actually help it to persist, expanding the gene-pool of the population will allow evolution to make the population more fit by selecting for the genes that are beneficial for survival and reproduction. Sure it's not conservation in the strictest sense but evolution itself is not about conserving species in their current form, change is natural and generally good for the environment.
Extreme conservationism put humans as a "least concern" at best
If you visit the wikipedia article about a specie you will see "conservation status" mentioned there
Homo sapiens - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But if you are going to apply the same standard on humans as we do on other species humans would actually be an invasive species, we do indeed cause a lot of environmental destruction which is an unavoidable consequence of being much more successful than other species. We are simply superior and as a result inferior species are now going extinct as evolution continues.
And we do in fact see environmentalists pushing humans to have fewer children similar to how the reproduction of other successful species are artificially restricted by environmentalists (such as castrating feral cats allowing rats to take over).
I have seen some people (often racists) promote conservationism with regard to human 'races' (or whatever) but that's not really something we do with wild animals, we do let wild animals mix with each other.
Of course humans getting conservation status "least concern" does not mean that humans itself should be that but then we have to value other things than merely conserving species for the sake of conserving species. What we should focus on is what is best for humanity, humans should be the first concern, not the last concern.
How environmentalists are making the rat problem worse in cities
For thousands of years humans have collaborated with cats letting them hunt rodents for food/sports.
But increasingly environmentalists have started complaining about cats killing useless birds and endangered species we never needed in the first place and because of that the feral cat population has been kept artificially down via mass-castration. As a result there are a lot more disease carrying rats instead of cute cats.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2018.00146/full
In order for cats to be effective against rats you need to have a lot of them so they are pushed to actually hunt for rats rather than easier prey or free food from humans. That is achieved naturally by simply letting the cat population grow to the natural equilibrium.
Some species are downright harmful towards humans
We should 100% exterminate mosquitos given the opportunity. Same with other nasty parasites like ticks, we simply don't need them anywhere.
The environment exist to serve humanity, not the other way around.
